On Tuesday 11 December 2001 06:29 am, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
Having a body of open source crypto software that is not entangled by any U.S. input is not a foolish idea.
Not when the body of software is critical for Linux and the widespread use of IPSec. If you want widespread adoption of IPSec in Linux, it needs to be in Linus' kernel. In order for this to happen, it is necessary for Linus and other people physically located in the United States need to be able to to contribute. Once Freeswan is in Linus' kernel, it will receive greater contribution and testing from both *inside* AND *outside* the United States. IMO: The current Freeswan policy *encourages* law makers to change the laws. Many companies have an invested interest in Linux. Those companies are willing to spend lots of money on lawyers to protect Linux. If IPSec is not part of Linux and is not in widespread Linux use, those companies will not have the need to defend us. We'll have kept crypto out of the hands of the people all on our own -- without the government's help. Do you really think that great programs like GNU Privacy Guard are going to magically disappear if the US government changes their regulations? Can they magically be erased from the net, just because some US contributions were made? - Dima --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com